← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46107/2024dismissed

Sanodh Mahto @ Nanhku Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-04Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46107 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2024 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna ====================================================== SANODH MAHTO @ NANHKU MAHTO S/O LATE YOGENDRA MAHTO R/O GOSAI TOLA, P.S- PATLIPUTRA, DISTT.- PATNA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhirendra Prasad Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-07-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Special Case No. 517 of 2024 arising out of Budha Colony P.S. Case No. 179 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 30 (a), 37 of Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act 2022.

3. As per allegation, 70.75 liters country made liquor was recovered from the hut of the petitioner. On seeing the police party, the petitioner became successful in fleeing away.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. She has submitted further that he was not arrested at the spot. The petitioner is under custody since 02.04.2024.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46107 of 2024(2) dt.04-07-2024 2/2

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent of similar nature.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation and also the fact that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent of similar nature, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected.

7. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six months from today. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T